On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 12:32 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> The CF app was and is specifically for dealing with CFs. Having it >> deal with backpatches makes it, well, a bugtracker. It's not meant to >> be that. If we want a bugtracker, then it has very different >> requirements. > > It's not in evidence that the requirements are different. The CF app is > basically a list of lists of patches with date information and > associated person's names. Tracking backpatch candidates doesn't sound > that much different. (That said, I'm not convinced backpatches need any > tracking at all, but if they did, I think the CF app would be just > fine.) >> >> Having an always-open CF would defeat the workflow. > > I'd imagine having a "CF" entry per release, so after a set of minor > releases, the "CF" is closed.
Oh, I think I misunderstood what you meant. That way does make a lot more sense than what I thought you were saying :) I shall withdraw my objection. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
